The spectacle of Michael Portillo re-creating himself as a cuddly, consensual politician for the “giving age” is sick-making; the Tory attempts to compete with Blair for the one-nation centre ground are laughable; but these events are of great significance for the left, and the Labour left in particular. This shift to the centre is only possible because the Tories largely endorse Blair’s economic and social strategy. It means that the real dividing line in British politics, and the real choice before the British working class, will be between the Labour Government and the left. That is an opportunity for the Labour left but also a grave responsibility. If we do not articulate the real options open to the Government, democratic debate will go by default. Blair’s neo-Thatcherite package of “labour market flexibility” and “welfare reform” will be imposed without serious challenge.
Events at Labour Party conference highlighted the paradoxical situation in which the Labour left now finds itself. On the one hand, the results in the one member one vote ballots for the Constituency section of the NEC proved conclusively that reports of the death of the Labour left were premature. The fact that Ken Livingstone decisively defeated both Mandelson and Peter Hain shows the groundswell of feeling in the Party for the clear alternative that Ken has advocated. As a whole, the Socialist Campaign Group slate increased its votes by a third. This was the biggest swing since 1980 to the left in NEC elections. It is an expression within the Party of the political shift in the country at large, confirming that the general election result was not just about a change in management but represented a desire for a radically new political direction. Surely it is extraordinary testimony to the fragility of Blairism that only five months after this spectacular victory, with Blair’s personal popularity ratings at record level, some 40% of the votes cast by Party members were cast for candidates whose dissent from the Government line on taxation and public spending was explicit.
On the other hand, the honeymoon period was clearly potent enough to allow the leadership to force through constitutional changes that will make it extremely difficult for a leftward moving rank and file to make its weight felt in the Party. The leadership’s clean sweep of conference votes, however, owes little to its persuasive powers and much to senior trade union leaders who time and again protected the leadership from dissent in the constituencies. New Labour was saved by Old Labour — which rather proves how misleading is that stale terminology.
In last month’s LLB, we argued that John Edmonds’ criticism of “labour market flexibility” was right. In casting the GMB’s vote for the leadership at the Party conference, Edmonds betrayed not only his own members, but also the logic of the critique of Blair which he has discreetly raised in recent months. Edmonds, like most other major union leaders, believes that if he bows to the leadership in public, he can extract concessions from it in private. It is said that the price of support for Partnership in Power was the inclusion of legislation on workplace rights in the next Queen’s Speech. It is a rotten deal for trade union members, who are being asked to accept a few stale crumbs as an afterthought when the main courses have already been gobbled up the employers. Far more effective than any backroom deal would be a trade union campaign for workplace rights, one that takes the arguments to the public with some sense of urgency, and seeks to utilise every democratic lever the trade unions possess — inside and outside the Labour Party.
Since Conference, events have confirmed that the Labour Government is vulnerable to pressure from the left, at the same time as it is determined to pursue its neo-Thatcherite strategy. The Chancellor was compelled to magic up £300 million to stave off the NHS winter crisis because support for the NHS is probably the single core concern which unites the Labour Party and Labour voters; the Government cannot afford, at this stage, to jeopardise its standing on this issue. At the same time, £100 million has been found for the purchase of additional nuclear warheads for Trident. Had UNISON adhered to the mandate of its own membership and opposed Trident at Party Conference, it would have been much more difficult for the Government to get away with this obscene and wasteful gesture. Once again, trade union leaders have much to answer for.
If the Labour left is to be effective in opposing the Government’s anti-working class policies, it will have to find ways of making its weight felt in the new Labour Party structures. A co-ordinated left campaign for the Constituency places on the new NEC needs to be agreed and launched without delay. In Parliament, we need clear opposition — and radical alternatives — to the introduction of tuition fees, the movement towards monetary union, the attempt to set a low and non-inclusive minimum wage, and, above all, to the continuing squeeze on public spending.